Did you vote today? I did – bright and early this morning, so that there were no excuses. But, there are many issues in several states that need to be considered when voting today, even though gay marriage and stem cell research are not the focus this election year. Let’s not forget Amendment 62 in Colorado –

“Two years after Coloradoans rejected an indirect attempt to illegalize abortion by redefining a human embryo as a “person,” the proposed amendment to the state constitution is back on the ballot.

The “Fetal Personhood” Amendment 62 would define “person” to include every human being from “the beginning of the biological development of that human being,” or conception.”

Arizona, Colorado and Oklahoma could approve state constitutional amendments to block enforcement of federal health care law mandates and allow individuals and businesses to choose whether to have or provide health insurance.

So, make sure that you get out and vote for those initiatives that affect fertility patients. Oh, and don’t forget the following initiative out of Denver. This one has to make you laugh:

Denver’s Initiative 300 would establish an Extraterrestrial Affairs Commission responsible for collecting and sharing evidence that extraterrestrials are visiting Earth, and for assessing the risks and benefits of making contact with those aliens.

Egg Donation – In a recent study, researchers “polled 75 egg donors at the time of egg retrieval and one year later, and found that the women remained happy, proud and carefree about their experience.”

The study was conducted by Andrea M. Braverman, director of complementary and alternative medicine at Reproductive Medicine Associates of New Jersey, and colleagues at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine in Denver, Colorado this past week.

“A year after donation, the women said they seldom worried about either the health or emotional well-being of the children they helped to spawn. They said they only think about the donation occasionally and rarely discuss it. The donors also reported that financial compensation was not the number-one motive for facilitating another woman’s pregnancy. Rather, a desire to help others achieve their dreams was pegged as the driving force, followed by money and feeling good.”

The findings are part of an ongoing five year study on egg donors. Braverman stated that “life changes a lot in five years, so it’ll be interesting to see if this lasts that far out. We can’t say yet. But so far we’re seeing that the feelings persisted during the beginning of the journey. A year out, we’re not seeing a change in donors’ experience. And that’s kind of a good thing.”

Happy Friday! A few updates on federal stem cell research courtesy of the ASRM and Australian surrogacy law. Enjoy!

Surrogacy bill gives parents more rights (Sydney, Australia) –

The Syndey Morning Herald
PARENTS of children born through surrogacy would be given full legal recognition for the first time, under a bill introduced in Parliament last night. Couples would also be able to enter into surrogacy arrangements abroad.

Couples would also be able to adopt a child born to a surrogate mother between 30 days and six months of birth.

MPs will have a conscience vote on the legislation, and it is likely the Opposition will follow suit, although this is yet to be decided.

Church groups are likely to oppose the legislation, which is expected to be less contentious than recent legislation to allow same-sex adoption, narrowly passed last month.

The legislation would ban commercial surrogacy and any associated advertising, although it does provide for all costs of the birth mother to be paid by the intended parents.

It follows a parliamentary inquiry last year that recommended the legislation – despite intense lobbying from church groups – be introduced to strengthen the position of intending parents in a surrogacy birth.

The legislation would allow a court to approve a parentage order once it was satisfied the birth mother and the intended parents had been given legal advice and counselling and had given their informed consent. The birth mother would have to be over 25 when entering a surrogacy agreement.

The Attorney-General, John Hatzistergos, said yesterday: ”While it will still be illegal to profit from surrogacy, the birth mother in an altruistic surrogacy will have a legal entitlement to be reimbursed for expenses such as medical and counselling.

“Until now the only way people with children born through surrogacy have been able to gain full parenting rights has been through adoption processes.

ASRM is a founding member of the CAMR; what follows in an update by CAMR immediate Past- President Amy Rick, CEO of the Parkinson’s Action Network, who has been heading up the legal effort for the coalition. The ASRM Public Affairs Staff was deeply involved in the preparation of CAMR’s brief.

The stem cell litigation continues to wind its way through the US court system. As you may recall, the lawsuit is currently in both the District Court, before Judge Lamberth, and in the Court of Appeals, before a three-judge panel. The District Court is receiving arguments “on the merits” whereas the Court of Appeals is technically ruling on whether Judge Lamberth was legally correct when he issued a preliminary injunction on August 23. However, it remains our hope that the Court of Appeals, in hearing arguments on the preliminary injunction, will issue an order that resolves the whole case.

Three significant briefs have been filed in the Court of Appeals in the last few days. On Thursday, the Department of Justice (DoJ) filed its brief. Once again, they did an excellent job representing the National Institutes of Health. Their brief is particularly strong on why the legislative history for Dickey Wicker supports the government’s interpretation and on supporting the need for human embryonic stem cell research to be conducted along with adult and induced pluripotent research. I am hopeful that the Court of Appeals will find DoJ’s arguments compelling.

Two amicus briefs were also filed this week in support of the DoJ brief. An amicus brief is a brief filed by an outside party in a lawsuit that wants to offer additional information for the court to consider. The Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research (CAMR), in conjunction with the State of Wisconsin and the Genetics Policy Institute (GPI), filed an amicus brief on Monday and yesterday, the University of California (UC) filed its own amicus. The Court of Appeals requires that amicus filers attempt to coordinate, so we are pleased that both Wisconsin and GPI agreed to join with CAMR’s brief. Both the CAMR brief and the UC brief do an excellent job supporting the government’s position, although they are quite different from each other. The CAMR brief focuses on the process of stem cell line derivation (which is not done with federal funds) and the legislative history. The UC brief goes back to the earlier decision of the Court of Appeals that grants standing to the two plaintiffs. In my opinion, the UC brief makes an excellent case for why the Court of Appeals should reverse its earlier decision and dismiss this whole case on the grounds that the plaintiffs do not have standing.

The DoJ brief and both amicus briefs can be found on the CAMR website at http://camradvocacy.org/resources.cfm.

The next significant dates in the Court of Appeals are October 28, when the plaintiffs’ brief is due, and then November 4 when DoJ’s final reply will be filed. We expect oral argument to occur shortly thereafter although oral argument is not yet scheduled. The briefing schedule for the District Court mirrors the Appeals court schedule so it is our expectation that Judge Lamberth will wait for the Court of Appeals ruling before he rules.

Currently, Poland has no laws to regulate IVF. But, “[l]awmakers from the ruling center-right Civic Platform (PO) party have prepared two rival bills, one relatively liberal and a more conservative one that would only allow the procedure only in a limited number of cases.” The bills up for debate range from a complete ban on IVF to state co-financing of IVF procedures.

The Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in Poland have sent a letter to the lawmakers looking to sway them before a parliamentary debate on the bills. “The bishops’ objection centers on the fact that generally multiple eggs are fertilized outside the womb, but not all are subsequently implanted in the mother. ‘IVF requires the ‘selection’ of embryos, which means killing them. It is about selecting weaker human embryos deemed to be unfit,’ said the letter.”

Paul Gras, spokesman for the Polish government, stated “Judging by the reaction of MPs, I think the bishops will have achieved exactly the opposite of what they intended. That is, they will fail in trying to block the (parliamentary) work on in vitro, the work will be accelerated and probably the bill will be passed this year.

Are you wearing purple today? If not, you should be. I am – Purple shirt, purple jacket and purple shoes…Why, you ask? Because of homophobic abuse suffered at the hands of bullies and the resulting suicides that continue to take place:

“On October 20th, 2010, we will wear purple in honor of the seven gay boys who committed suicide in recent weeks/months, many of them due to homophobic abuse in their homes or at their schools,” Brittany McMillan said. “Purple represents Spirit on the LGBTQ flag and that’s exactly what we’d like all of you to have with you: spirit. Please know that times will get better and that you will meet people who will love you and respect you for who you are, no matter your sexuality.” Using her account, McMillan was able to spread her request with chain-letter like speed.

And, don’t forget forget tomorrow’s Surrogacy Lawyer Radio Show: Your Guide for IVF & Third Party Family Building at 11AM PST/2PM EST

The Surrogacy Lawyer invites you to join her for an informative discussion on surrogacy on the Thursday, October 21st episode of The Surrogacy Lawyer: Your Guide to IVF and Third Party Reproduction at 11AM PST/2PM EST where she will interview Sharon LaMothe, a former gestational surrogate and author of the upcoming book Surrogacy Helps a Family Grow, and Tracy Armato, program director of Conceptual Options and past surrogate.

When a woman decides to become a surrogate mother, she will have many conversations: with members of the surrogacy agency team, the intended parents, the medical and legal professionals and with her spouse or partner. But one of the most important conversations she will have is with her children. “As The Surrogacy Lawyer and founder of a surrogacy and egg donation agency, I am excited about this new tool to help surrogate mothers talk to their children about the amazing gift they are giving another set of parents,“ says attorney Erickson. “Having open and honest conversations about third party reproduction is essential. I look forward to advancing the conversation about this important topic.”

The Florida Department of Children and Families announced that they will not be appealing the decision that struck down Florida’s ban on gay adoption. This announcement brings gays in Florida one step closer to being able to adopt children.

“We had weighed an appeal to the Florida Supreme Court to achieve an ultimate certainty and finality for all parties,” said Joe Follick, the department’s communications director. “But the depth, clarity and unanimity of the DCA opinion — and that of Miami-Dade Judge Cindy Lederman’s original circuit court decision — has made it evident that an appeal would have a less than limited chance of a different outcome.”

The Department of Children and Families has removed questions regarding sexual orientation from their adoption forms.

Colorado – Amendment 62 causes concern for fertility doctors:
This November voters will have another chance to decide on an amendment that aims to define when life begins.

Amendment 62 is the second ballot initiative of its kind in two years.
But this time around opponents say the wording is just too vague.
A yes vote on amendment 62 will determine human life is created at conception and should have the same rights and protections as anyone that’s been born.

Supporters of the measure took to the corner of 12th and north Sunday.
While opponents haven’t been as vocal, many say the proposal is even more controversial this time around because it’s missing the word fertilization.

People in the medical community say it would present a road block for fertility doctors and patients, especially in the cases of in vitro fertilization where a woman’s eggs are fertilized inside a lab.

According to a new poll 50% of Colorado voters are still undecided on amendment 62.

Italy – The Italian Supreme Constitutional Court, which has one of the most restrictive laws regarding assisted fertility, is considering a review of the 2003 law. A referendum on the assisted fertility law was held in 2005 and although more people voted in favor of repealing the measure, a quorum was not reached and the vote was not valid.

Ignazio Marino, an MP in the opposition Democratic Party (PD) and chairman of a parliamentary commission reviewing the national health sector, said “the law was passed six years ago for purely ideological reasons, without taking into account the needs of unfertile couples, women’s health and possible advances in medicine. Today there exists a possibility to re-examine this law.”

The Constitutional Court was asked to give its opinion by a court in Florence which is hearing a case brought forwards by unfertile couple who demand to have access to assisted fertility therapy and not be forced to go abroad.

British Columbia – A couple from British Columbia, who discovered that the fetus their surrogate was carrying was likely to be born with Down syndrome, they wanted an abortion.

The surrogate, however, was determined to take the pregnancy to term, sparking a disagreement that has raised thorny questions about the increasingly common arrangements.

Under the agreement the trio signed, the surrogate’s choice would mean absolving the couple of any responsibility for raising the child, the treating doctor told a recent fertility-medicine conference.

Dr. Ken Seethram, revealing the unusual situation for the first time, said it raises questions about whether government oversight of contracts between mothers and “commissioning” parents is needed.

A bioethicist who has studied the issue extensively argues that contract law should not apply to the transaction, unless human life is to be treated like widgets in a factory.
Prof. Guichon speculated that courts likely would not honour a surrogacy contract, drawing instead on family law that would require the biological parents to support the child.

It appears no surrogacy contract has actually been contested in a Canadian court, however, leaving the transactions in some legal limbo.

Dr. Seethram’s presentation to the Canadian Society of Fertility and Andrology conference suggested the accord signed by the three in B.C. may have undermined the surrogate’s right to make decisions in a “non-coercive” environment. The surrogate, a mother of two children of her own, eventually chose to have the abortion, partly because of her own family obligations.

A former surrogate who helps parents and mothers make such arrangements said the parties should agree on what they would do if defects are discovered during pregnancy, ensuring they have the same views on abortion. If a dispute still arises, however, parents ought to be protected, said Sally Rhoads of SurrogacyInCanada.ca.”The baby that’s being carried is their baby. It’s usually their genetic offspring,” she said. “Why should the intended parents be forced to raise a child they didn’t want? It’s not fair.”

In some U.S. jurisdictions, in fact, parents can even sue a surrogate to recoup their payments if the woman insists on going ahead with a pregnancy against their wishes, Ms. Rhoads said.

Disputes are rare here, but she said it is usually surrogates who end up feeling most aggrieved. She recalled one case where the mother conceived twins, the parents asked for a procedure to reduce the number of fetuses to one, and the whole pregnancy was inadvertently lost. In three other Canadian cases, surrogates are now raising the babies after the commissioning couples got divorced and backed out, Ms. Rhoads said.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryo Authority (HFEA) in the United Kingdom has announced that it is going to launch an investigation into online “sperm brokers” who put women in contact with potential sperm donors.

“Most of these websites, however, simply provide a facility for women to make contact with potential donors and the individuals make their own arrangements. But the HFEA claims that the websites are putting women’s health at risk because they are unregulated and there is no official way of screening the donors for sexually transmitted infections such as HIV. Instead it is the sole responsibility of the individuals involved to make arrangements to be screened and ensure that the donor is disease free. In contrast, fertility clinics operate within specific safeguards, which include screening donors prior to donation and storing samples for six months before use to ensure the male donor is negative for HIV. It is therefore true that there is a risk associated with DIY insemination.”

Many people think that the HFEA’s action are because the “thought of people taking fertility into their own hands and undermining their authority.” Others see it as very patronizing to women suggesting “that women, overcome by raging hormones and deafened by the ticking of their biological clock, are acting irrationally and cannot be trusted to make decisions.”

Olivia Pratten, the woman seeking to end sperm donor anonymity in Canada may get her day in court.

“On Wednesday the Supreme Court of British Columbia agreed to consider whether Ms. Pratten’s legal battle against the province’s Attorney-General and College of Physicians and Surgeons that seeks to make the identities of anonymous sperm, egg or embryo donors available should proceed to trial.”

Trial is set to begin next month if Ms. Pratten’s claim is allowed to stand.

Frozen Embryos – I found this interesting article, which I thought was timely since The Surrogacy Lawyer Radio Show with Dr. Craig Sweet, who is big proponent of embryo donation. The study listed below shows that couples who use donated eggs are more likely to donate their remaining frozen embryos to others for conception. Interesting read. Your thoughts?

http://www.voiceamerica.com/voiceamerica/vepisode.aspx?aid=48749

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – Couples who have frozen embryos left over after undergoing in-vitro fertilization (IVF) are more likely to donate them to other infertile couples if the embryos were conceived with a donated egg, new research shows.

The study also shows that most couples who did have extra frozen embryos after IVF –whether or not they were from donated eggs — either used the embryos in subsequent rounds of IVF or chose to continue to store them, Dr. Melanie R. Freeman and Dr. George A. Hill of the Nashville Fertility Center in Nashville, Tennessee, report in the journal Fertility and Sterility.

“The real problem is that there are not enough embryos donated for people who want to accept them and get pregnant from them,” Freeman told Reuters Health. Only a few infertility clinics offer the option of donating an embryo, or becoming pregnant with a donated embryo, she added. At the Nashville Fertility Center, pregnancy success rates with donated frozen embryos range from 42 percent to 50 percent, Freeman and Hill note in their report.

Center policy requires couples to state their wishes for the disposition of extra embryos before undergoing an IVF cycle, and then provide consent a second time before disposition actually takes place.

To investigate the choices couples made, and whether or not having conceived an embryo with a donated egg made any difference, the researchers looked at records from 1998 to 2008 for 1,262 patients who used their own eggs and had 5,417 embryos preserved, and another 272 patients who conceived with donated eggs and preserved 1,233 embryos.

Among the couples who conceived with their own eggs, 39 percent used the stored embryos and 35 percent decided to keep the embryos in storage, while 40 percent of the couples who used donated eggs used the embryos and 23 percent continued to store them.

And among the 364 patients who used their own eggs and had embryos left over, 21 percent donated them to infertile couples, 11 percent donated them for research, and 68 percent discarded them.

Among the 110 patients with extra embryos who had conceived via egg donation, 56 percent gave the embryos to other infertile couples, 6 percent donated them for research, and 38 percent discarded them.

According to Freeman, it’s not surprising that the egg donor recipients would be more likely to donate their embryos in turn. “The people using donated eggs had someone donate to them, so I guess they turn around and are altruistic and donate to someone else,” she said.

“We really need to educate patients on this alternative,” Freeman added. “I think it’s a good choice. If we had more embryos, it would be a great choice for a lot of people.”